Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday January 26, 2013 @11:22AM
from the his-hair-looks-nothing-like-that dept.

As reported by news.com.au, Julian Assange has seen leaked copies of the script of an upcoming film depicting WikiLeaks, and blasts it as inaccurate propaganda. He says, among other things, "They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now." Says the article: "Assange declined to say where he got the script, although he hinted that he had been supplied with several copies of it over time. He also declined to say whether the script would be posted to the WikiLeaks website, saying only that "we are examining options closely.'"

I have bad news, but films are designed to sell advertising, tickets, and concessions food in that order. you dont achieve all these things by making an accurate depiction of a subject matter, you sensationalize it. among other things patently false in several other films:
1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert
2. transformers: cars do not in fact transform into killer robots.
3. Jurrasic park: while UNIX is in fact quite useful in the administration of automated SCADA systems, no such systems have been constructed to date for the express purpose of housing genetically cloned dinosaurs, which also do not exist.
4. zero dark thirty: "terror" is in fact not something a nation can declare war on or successfully claimed to have emerged the victor from.

I have bad news, but films are designed to sell advertising, tickets, and concessions food in that order. you dont achieve all these things by making an accurate depiction of a subject matter, you sensationalize it. among other things patently false in several other films:

1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert

2. transformers: cars do not in fact transform into killer robots.

3. Jurrasic park: while UNIX is in fact quite useful in the administration of automated SCADA systems, no such systems have been constructed to date for the express purpose of housing genetically cloned dinosaurs, which also do not exist.

4. zero dark thirty: "terror" is in fact not something a nation can declare war on or successfully claimed to have emerged the victor from.

Ya know, I think I'd watch a parody movie about Wikileaks. One where Assange is a Cyborg Ninja from the 45th century, sent back to save the world from what the United States will become. But not while he's still alive. I guess I'm saying that my descendants would probably enjoy that movie.

But 1, 2, 3 -- those are obviously based on fantasy. Not reality. This movie is ostensibly based on real people, real events. That puts it in a different light. It is held in a higher standard.

Imagine a movie about Linus Torvalds, where he's portrayed as actively attempting to destroy America's economy by being a socialist communist pink fascist obsessed with "stealing" from American programmers, who put up a valiant and noble fight against him. Would suck, wouldn't it?

As for #4, having not seen the latest "Rah Rah War is Awesome" movie there, nor do I really intend to. (I try to not support political assassination whenever possible.) I can only say that your comment on Zero Dark Thirty seems like more of a statement of fact about a real life policy enacted by the Bush Administration and continued by the Obama administration.

Don't get me wrong, Zero Dark Thirty is probably the closest thing in that list to being relevant, but you miss a bigger point -- 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, Zero Dark Thirty is probably the closest thing in that list to being relevant, but you miss a bigger point -- 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy.

I didn't get that impression. Further, on The Colbert Report on 2013-01-22, the director called torture "reprehensible," and indicated that the depictions were included in order to avoid whitewashing history.

We KNOW this because of testimony from the CIA operatives who worked with the captives who provided information about Osama.

In short, they tortured people suspected of knowing important information, and those "informants" gave up shit for intel. They'd say ANYTHING they thought the torturers wanted to hear. And, it was useless.

AFTER all the torturing was finished, different operatives approached the same "informants" in a more friendly manner, and basically bribed useful information from the "informants". Promises of better treatment, promises of religious practice, a little sympathy, a little empathy, share a smoke - the little things that denote that you recognize a man as a man, and that you respect him.

FFS, parents who are worthy of that title can tell you that they can tease information from their children far more readily than they can threaten it or beat it out of them.

Are you sure they weren't doing the well known, "good cop, bad cop"? I do not think the order of torture, then bribery is random at all. The torturing effects how someone responds to bribery later.
There really is no in spite of. It's just the status quo.

The head of Israeli intelligence ran an interview on it years back, first came across links to it in "new scientist". Shame i don't have the article now, was about how torture yielded useless info and undermined progress, in fact good cop bad cop doesn't work and without torture they would have got MORE info. Hard to open up and trust someone or let your guard down and accidentally slip info when guys on their team had previously pissed all over your basic rights and their so called anti torture conventions

The "good cop, bad cop" routine does not require the use of torture. It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring. The routine is very effective, of course, in certain situations.

It's generally considered a form of psychological torture to threaten to torture somebody. For example, from the Geneva Conventions:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

That is quite clearly understood by most of us. However, I said, "It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring"

In the good cop, bad cop scenario, the bad cop states that you're facing about twelve lifetimes in prison for your crimes, then the good cop comes in, offers you a coke and a cigarette, and offers to help you get your list of crimes reduced to only three lifetimes in prison.

The bad cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely stretched the truth. That is the

Your attempts to work around the principle remind me of "enhanced interrogation", and backpedaling to boot. You explicitly said, "THREAT of torture", which is explicitly forbidden. See how easy it is to become that which you hate?

According to the US government and the US military is just requires the redefining of what is and is not torture. I though the current Uncle Tom Obama approved definition is 'No Permanent Organ Damage'. He must have approved it because there has been not attempt to prosecute for the repeated practice.

There is very little to gain by interrogating a prisoner, you either have the evidence of a crime and the prosecution is valid or you are just fishing because you need to 'win' some prosecutions in order gai

Full of shit, much? You got caught in a bad position and are trying to weasel your way out of it.

I'm even opposed to the "good cop - bad cop" routine.

You didn't state that originally. What you tried to do, in two separate posts, is give a way that wasn't torture for the bad cop routine. Both times you clearly invoked the use of threats, and in the first post one of those threats was the use of torture (key word there being "or"). You can't say you can solve your problems by "evil thing or some other unpleasant things occurring" and pretend you didn't advocate

Go back to school, chump. You are unequipped to engage in a battle of the wits. There's a community college near you that can help with your own personal set of disadvantages.

There are times when I've failed to convey my thoughts properly, and a couple of times slashdotters have called me on it. When that happens, I am man enough to give them some kind of salute, and acknowledge that I have screwed up - whether I made a simple typo, or I typed to damned fast and allowed my fingers to get ahead of my brai

I though the current Uncle Tom Obama approved definition is 'No Permanent Organ Damage'. He must have approved it because there has been not attempt to prosecute for the repeated practice.

You're wrong. There was a policy of torture from the previous administration. This was rescinded. What is true that Obama explicitly decided he was not going to prosecute any of the past torture. Example article here [huffingtonpost.com]. I could understand that point of view, and easily debate both sides, but to say that Obama didn't recognize what went on before as torture is wrong.

"The "good cop, bad cop" routine does not require the use of torture. It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring. The routine is very effective, of course, in certain situations."

How in the FUCK do you deduce, from that post, that I approve of torture?

Let's try this: "The formation of ice does not require subzero or even subfreezing temperatures, it only requires a low temperature near freezing, and en

How in the FUCK do you deduce, from that post, that I approve of torture?

What you endorsed was the threat of torture, which many consider a form of torture in and of itself. What you're ignoring is the context of the rest of the thread:

==

_KiTA_: "We caught Bin Laden DESPITE using torture, not BECAUSE of it."

Anonymous Coward: "And you KNOW this how?"

Runaway1956: "We KNOW this because of testimony from the CIA operatives who worked with the captives who provided information about Osama. [..] AFTER all the torturing was finished, different operatives approached the same "informants

You will never find anyplace where I have approved of the use of torture, or the threat of torture.

Except I did, in black and white.

No you didn't - and anyone can read the thread and see for themselves.

I don't know why I bothered with this reply as I know how arguing with trolls work - and hell, it's not even my battle. I just get frustrated when I see asses like you who make a mistake and then create an issue out of being mistaken like it's death before you admit it. I did this more to support your victim here than try to argument you - feel free to declare yourself winner after I don't reply back.

It's easy to declare myself the victor when you don't make an argument and throw out the word troll. Yes, anybody can read the thread, and I even quoted the essentials in a convenient format in a later post. Since you don't have an argument to make, your support for the "victim" means nothing to me.

So what you are saying is Uncle Tom Obama recognises it is torture and is just publicly an accessory to crime after the fact and publicly thumbing his nose at the law. So his attitude, "Law, Law, I don't need to stinkin Law, I am the Law". So Uncle Tom Obama's stance is even worse as he does not have ignorance and stupidity as an excuse, he is just a straight up undeniable criminal. Seriously the only legal stance Obama should take would be to force an acknowledgement and a vote on the Congress and Senate

Even arguing whether torture was effective or not is a sign that US propaganda in this regard did very well. Now supported by Hollywood they seem to beat Goebbels to the punch. Torturing people is forbidden by Geneva convetions and international law, period. Anyone using torture under any pretext should be prosecuted, period. This ban has its reason: if you allow your government to torture some "brown people" your govt claims being dangerous, a precedent is being set and very soon the very same government will torture just about anyone they don't like (including their own citizens).

Are you sure they weren't doing the well known, "good cop, bad cop"? I do not think the order of torture, then bribery is random at all. The torturing effects how someone responds to bribery later.

There really is no in spite of. It's just the status quo.

If your "bad cop" routine involves hanging known innocents from hooks until they die and shoving flashlights up people's children's asses in front of them to get them to talk (both things confirmed by the Red Cross to have happened to people under our watch in Iraq), seek a different career path.

Not to mention we tortured people that anybody with a fucking brain would know wouldn't be told jack shit. We tortured the cab driver the Taliban grabbed and used to ferry around some of their high level guys...he was a fucking CAB DRIVER, do they think that the world works like a James Bond film? that the villain is just gonna monologue their plans to some dumb shit that doesn't have squat to do with anything? Of course not he was told "STFU and drive until I say stop" and that was it. It would be like torturing Romney's garbageman to find out what his campaign plans are, how the hell is he supposed to know this? You think he goes out for a beer with Romney or something?

And THIS is why i'm so saddened and disgusted by the people in this country not saying shit about Assange and letting our leaders keep him locked in a room in that embassy because you read the shit that was posted on Wikileaks and its pretty damned obvious that several high level members of our government frankly should be brought up to the Hague for war crimes. Its disgusting the shit that our government and those hired by our government have been doing in these countries, shit just as evil as during the worst days of the Vietnam war (which you noticed the press didn't make shit about the government FINALLY coming clean and admitting The Gulf Of Tonkin was a false flag) only now the evil bastards at the top learned from their mistakes in Vietnam and simply bought up all the MSM. So now instead of anybody saying shit about this stream of information proving multiple war crimes we get "Assange is a dirty pervo rapist who need to be sent to Gitmo". you know what? I don't give a rat's ass if Assange spends his weekends pushing little old ladies down the stairs as HE ain't killing thousands of people and starting shit all over the planet!

I urge everyone to watch the end of America [youtube.com] by Naomi Wolf. She isn't some whacko here, she is a quiet little conservative Jewish girl (I personally think she is a little TOO conservative when it comes to the conclusions) who is now on the watchlist for daring to speak about our rights under the constitution. That's right folks, simply giving a lecture about what the declaration of independence and constitution says is enough to have you put on the list. In this video she shows several examples in history of free societies that became non free overnight, and she gives a step by step account of how it happens. She calls it the "universal playbook" that has been used by everyone from Stalin to Franco and watch how many of those plays are already either in motion here or have already been used. And one of the final steps she lists is a society creating a framework to where people can be tortured outside the rule of law. Why is this one of the last steps? Because it always starts small and gets bigger. Hitler started with only communists, Stalin started with the kulaks, in EVERY case she shows how these extra judicial systems grow like a cancer to cover more and more "undesirable elements".

so we need to seriously wake the fuck up, stop letting the MSM divert us with bullshit like Assange and start demanding that they go after the big issues like the tortures, bombings, and all the other nasty evil shit [killinghope.org] that has been and is being done in our name and with our money.

IANAL. When companies create movies about people who are alive, and events that are still being ajudicated, they are interfering with due process. Who knows what fallacy will be used against Julian Assange as a result.

Note that Kevin Mitnick was imprisoned in solitary confinement after a judge was convinced that he could just whistle into a phone and launch nulcear weapons. The idea that was pitched to the judge was based on the movie "War Gam

I have worse news. That movie comes from the propaganda factory of the powers that be, exactly the ones that want to imprint into public opinion that Wikileaks is something evil that only spread lies. Not exactly surprised about what Assagne said about it.

Completely not what I was thinking. I was referring to Big Media and our government scratching each other's back. Period.

But since you steered the topic that way: I don't give anyone a get out of jail card just because they might play their anti semetic trump. But I wouldn't put it past our government's propaganda ministry to have done that calculus.

A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material. They could touch on Manning's plight in jail, on the embassy drama, the fights within the organization, etc. By choosing to fabricate key elements of the plot to push an agenda that is anti-wikileaks and pro war with Iran, Dreamworks is passing up a massive opportunity as a studio, and opening themselves up to a PR nightmare.

A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material.

And the unedited helicopter gunship video that brought wikileaks mainstream attention would have been compelling material too. Unfortunately wikileaks saw an opportunity to get the press attention that they desired and to further the political agenda that they desired. So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons. The journalists walking around with armed insurgents was an inconvenient truth for their narrative. An inaccurate portrayal of wikileaks is fitting since they were are al

Apparently Assange sat down with Ayatollah Khamenei and got his assurances that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon? Or perhaps he snuck in and examined their facilities? Shew, that's a relief. I think we can all rest easier now now the Jules has settled this matter for us.

"They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now."

Both of Assange's assertions are false as shown above. Iran isn't being framed, they do have an actual active nuclear weapons program, including design and testing of implosion based warhead components. What they have yet to do, so far as is publicly known, is to actually produce a real warhead. Anyone reading the papers, as shown in the parent post, or other sources [foxnews.com], knows this. If fact, Iran may be making a move to surge their efforts [foxnews.com]. This isn'

I'm afraid you've got some bad data. Allow me to refer you to this document from the IAEA which lists a number of activities connected with the design, fabrication, and testing of nuclear weapons, and developing nuclear materials. That 24 hour IAEA supervision you refer to isn't consistent with what is in the document - they are concerned about the growing number of hidden Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggest you read the Annex, from which I've extracted some relevant information. Sections C4 and forwa

I still don't find any reference to unsupervised "nuclear material" (i.e. what NPT is about) except those very small amounts mentioned here "late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s" which is referring to a decade ago. Currently all the fissile material is under supervision.

Conducting tests with highly explosives (non-nuclear material) and missiles is not covered by NPT agreements.

One major difference is Steve Jobs (the main subject) has passed away whereas Julian Assange isn't only very well alive, his story (pun intended) isn't over yet. With a story based heavily on (controversial) history, the story is too fresh. The dust should settle in first.

7 times the UN security council has unanimously voted that they have evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons and ordered them to stop. If they're being framed, they're being framed in such a way that every single member of the security council has it confirmed by their own intelligence agencies.

And yet Assange individually knows better than all of these intelligence agencies. If he had actual proof of that, that would be a fantastic thing to leak. I don't believe he does.

Actually most of those agencies believed that they didn't, and stated as much. As did the non-Cheney controlled American analysts. It was pretty obvious at the time that the Bush/Cheney were looking for a pretext for war.

Thats not the case this time. Iran is an existential threat an ally. Has actively supported our enemies. Is unequivocally known to be enriching uranium. Has traded bomb and missile technology with a country that openly admits to be developing weapons to target the U.S..

Actually most of those agencies believed that they didn't, and stated as much. As did the non-Cheney controlled American analysts. It was pretty obvious at the time that the Bush/Cheney were looking for a pretext for war.

I'll await your citations. I've debated this position with others in the past, and even France, the poster child for the "wise" Europeans counciling against war by the brash Americans, wanted more time for inspections. They never said they believed there were no WMD.

The Soviet bureaucrats learned hard way that keeping such phenomenons as Andrei Sakharov, Anatoly Sharansky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in prison is like trying to kill a mockingbird.

The US and UK bureaucrats should cut losses, learn lessons and leave Julian and Bradley alone. Let them go wherever they wish while still there is time. They are just too big to be kept down like this. Not good to attract attention to them any longer.

A law has a letter and a spirit. Socrates also broke a letter of a law. And he was condemned to a capital punishment by sort of a kangaroo court of that time.

They are on the same scale as Socrates, they are the personages of human civilization. Nothing can be done about it anymore. They are too big and can turn out to be unexpectedly devastatingly strong. The best way is to leave them alone and ignore.

Arguably. It could also be argued that the people he exposed, those that committed the criminal acts he exposed, those that were complicit, those that created the framework where such disgusting, amoral and hideous acts could be committed - it could be argued that these people were the criminals, and Manning the patriot for exposing them. They were and are acting against the interest of the United States - not Manning. They were, and are, by their actions betraying the principles and ideals that unite the U

I missed something. What big horrible crimes did Manning's leaks reveal? The only thing close was a video of an airstrike in Baghdad, which he found in a Judge advocates file because it was being investigated by the military already.

You sure did. Why is that? Why did it become so important to you to focus on Manning himself and not on the content of the leaks?

What big horrible crimes did Manning's leaks reveal? The only thing close was a video of an airstrike in Baghdad, which he found in a Judge advocates file because it was being investigated by the military already.

Isn't that the one that we later found out the US military had counted as insurgent deaths - when in fact it was a bunch of civilians and a reuters cameraman? The one with the helicopter crew whooping and laughing whilst innocent people are killed, and then later, when they find out that there were kids there, they justified it to themselves by saying that civilians shouldn't hav

He's just holding out for Brad Pitt to be cast as the role of Julian. Then I bet he'll change his tune. The final cut of the movie will be 5 minutes of explosions followed by 90 minutes of Brad Pitt crashing on a couch in an embassy somewhere.